Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[clkwrks]

Here's another way The Machine is deceptive:

Disproved by his own citations! Raffaele did not say Amanda left his apartment, he's talking about them being in town and splitting up at about 9 PM, which we all know didn't happen, Raffaele must be thinking of a different night/event.

"Amanda and I went into town at around 6pm, but I don't remember what we did. We stayed there until around 8.30 or 9pm.

"At 9pm I went home alone and Amanda said that she was going to Le Chic because she wanted to meet some friends. We said goodbye. I went home, I rolled myself a spliff and made some dinner."

You're right. That's a pretty good description of what Amanda and Raffaele say they did the evening of October 31st.

 

[Fine]

Them Rotten Brats

Originally Posted by HumanityBlues View Post
If you look at the "anonymous blog"'s past posts, you'll find this person believes the motive to kill Meredith was "ethnic cleansing". So of course I give this person's mafia musings instance credibility....

Keep in mind, I have been told that this is that moderator's favorite blogger.

http://i.imgur.com/b63w1.png

Finally, we have a motive!

_____________

Bruce,

Mignini's case against Amanda included a motive. The motive was hate.

"Amanda hated Meredith and November 2nd was the time for the American girl to exact revenge on the rotten brat." ("Amanda Knox ha covato odio per Meredith e la sera del 2 novembre del 2007 per la giovane americana era venuto il momento di vendicarsi di quella smorfiosa''.) La Nazione/ November, 2009

This is a verbatim quote from Mignini in court, during his summation. In light of Mignini's recent interviews, you gotta wonder whether mention of "November 2nd" was an error on the part of the reporter, a mis-statement by Mignini,... or evidence of Mignini's befuddled understanding of the case.

(Say, wasn't Sarah Scazzi, too, a rotten brat?)

///

 

[LondonJohn]

Just a short note to say that the idiots are totally wrong when it comes to their supposed "clinical dissection" of the references in the DNA report. The references support the report's conclusions, and vice-versa. My view is that there can be practically no doubt that a large number of crucial processes and protocols were not followed in the DNA work in this case.

And that leads me to the related point: the idiots seem to be most keen to attack the references related to LCN analysis/interpretation. They are also cherry-picking quotes on LCN in a bid to refute the report (Hi Fiona! Admirably sceptical and objective!). The report is correct on the LCN testing/interpretation errors, and it's also correct on all the other fundamental errors involved throughout the whole process (identification, collection, handling, storage, testing, interpretation).

I truly think that some of the idiots have convinced themselves that the court discussion of the report (which starts on 25th July) will consist of a withering rebuttal by Stefanoni (and her illustrious bosses), and that Hellmann will send the experts packing. I can tell them all now that nothing of the sort will happen. I might wager a small bet that Stefanoni might somehow find a reason not to make it to Hellmann's court; but if she does, I think she'll either go down fighting or frankly admit to her numerous failings. I hope that she has the dignity to do the latter, but I have a small suspicion that she's drunk enough of the "Italian Law Enforcement KoolAid" to do the former.

Either way, Stefanoni is - as some idiots elsewhere are fond of saying - toast.

 

[LondonJohn]

BTW: why does Ganong go to such great pains to advertise the pretence that she doesn't read these JREF threads? Does she think that it makes her somehow superior or aloof? Cos it's not true

 

[LondonJohn]

Certainly, my position is that the whole scenario as suggested by the prosecution is fantastical in the extreme. Ritual murder on All Saints' Day, "now we will make you have sex", the idea of these three people somehow teaming up to commit such an act - it's ludicrous on the face of it. And the repeatedly-changing prosecution scenarios don't help - one minute Amanda is the wielder of the knife, and the next she's just directing the play from outside the room, and so on.

But ludicrous things do happen. So I'm looking for the sort of evidence that will substantiate the allegations, or even make them seem plausible, but I'm not finding it. Instead I find the prosecution timing the death at 11.40 when it clearly happened more than two hours before that. And I find that while there's copious evidence of the presence of Rudy Guede at the scene, the evidence for the presence of Knox and Sollecito is much much slimmer, to the point of being highly questionable. We're being asked to believe in some sort of cunning "selective clean-up" where the guilty pair somehow knew exactly where to clean to remove the traces of their own presence, but leave those of Guede. That smacks of the impossible to me.

It's also highly suspicious that the police jumped to the conclusion that this very improbable event had happened, and then found the evidence to corroborate it - even to the point of selectively going back and finding what they needed to sustain the accusations after certain original pieces of evidence had fallen through.

This, to me, adds up to an enormous heap of extremely reasonable doubt. In fact, I'd say it was "innocent on the balance of probabilities", at the very least. Which leads to the uncomfortable conclusion that two young people are having their lives ruined over a false accusation.

What would it take to make me more convinced of guilt? Some actual evidence, rather than just the observation that Amanda Knox is an idiot and said and did some very stupid things. To make me believe guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt? Some very strong, incontrovertible evidence. I think it's unlikely anything like that will be forthcoming at this stage in the game, though.







Yeah, that would do it. So long as the confession was compos mentis and not coerced.

Rolfe.

I am in full agreement with you on everything here. Especially the last part: my belief that Knox and Sollecito should be acquitted is absolutely definitely not set in stone, and I'd change my view in an instant if there was solid evidence proving their participation in the murder.

I've mentioned it before, but I think that the two things that are now the most urgent matters for the defence to address are these: the bathmat partial foot print, and the testimony of Quintavalle. I believe that if Hellmann's court comes to the same conclusions about these two things as Massei's court did (i.e. the print was Sollecito's, and Quintavalle's testimony was accurate and reliable), then Knox/Sollecito will be found guilty - regardless of the exclusion of the DNA evidence and even if ToD is shown to be pre-10pm.

My objective belief is that the footprint analysis was based entirely on bogus pseudoscience, done by a police forensics analyst who was working to an agenda. I think that there is more than ample scope for the defence to completely refute this evidence. I think the defence teams did a very bad job in not giving a sufficiently convincing rebuttal in the first trial (although Massei's dreadful reasoning in this area also contributed). I hope (and believe) that in the appeal trial, the defence will home in on this bathmat partial print, and focus on destroying it as incriminating evidence. After all, if they don't manage to successfully contest this print, then the court will conclude that Sollecito was barefoot in the bathroom at some point, having stepped in a dilute mixture of Meredith's blood. That would be enough - in my view - to show guilt on Sollecito's part (and, by extension, probably Knox's too), especially when set against his claims regarding his whereabouts and footwear on the 1st/2nd November.

On Quintavalle's testimony, I believe that he is either honestly mistaken or a liar. Again, I don't think the defence teams did enough in the first trial to question the validity or veracity of this testimony (coupled, again, with awful reasoning on Massei's part). But I think it should be fairly easy to cast significant doubt on his story*. The whole way in which it came to light, and the way in which it seems to conflict with his own employee's recollection, makes it a highly unreliable piece of testimony to me. But again, if the defence can't cast significant doubt on Quintavalle, then my belief is that Knox would be in trouble: why would she lie about her whereabouts at 7.45-8.00am on the 2nd, unless she had something major to hide?

* Although it's hard to fight against the sort of stellar "reasoning" used by Massei (and explicitly explained in his discussion of Capezzali's testimony), in which he couldn't figure why somebody would testify to something happening if it hadn't actually happened......

 

[LondonJohn]

By the way, has it occurred to the idiots that the reason why so many non-Italian codes of procedure are referenced in the independent DNA report is because the Italian scientific police haven't yet bothered to write their own? Have the idiots stopped to think why that might be, and what that might imply?

 

[HumanityBlues]

I am in full agreement with you on everything here. Especially the last part: my belief that Knox and Sollecito should be acquitted is absolutely definitely not set in stone, and I'd change my view in an instant if there was solid evidence proving their participation in the murder.

I've mentioned it before, but I think that the two things that are now the most urgent matters for the defence to address are these: the bathmat partial foot print, and the testimony of Quintavalle. I believe that if Hellmann's court comes to the same conclusions about these two things as Massei's court did (i.e. the print was Sollecito's, and Quintavalle's testimony was accurate and reliable), then Knox/Sollecito will be found guilty - regardless of the exclusion of the DNA evidence and even if ToD is shown to be pre-10pm.

My objective belief is that the footprint analysis was based entirely on bogus pseudoscience, done by a police forensics analyst who was working to an agenda. I think that there is more than ample scope for the defence to completely refute this evidence. I think the defence teams did a very bad job in not giving a sufficiently convincing rebuttal in the first trial (although Massei's dreadful reasoning in this area also contributed). I hope (and believe) that in the appeal trial, the defence will home in on this bathmat partial print, and focus on destroying it as incriminating evidence. After all, if they don't manage to successfully contest this print, then the court will conclude that Sollecito was barefoot in the bathroom at some point, having stepped in a dilute mixture of Meredith's blood. That would be enough - in my view - to show guilt on Sollecito's part (and, by extension, probably Knox's too), especially when set against his claims regarding his whereabouts and footwear on the 1st/2nd November.

On Quintavalle's testimony, I believe that he is either honestly mistaken or a liar. Again, I don't think the defence teams did enough in the first trial to question the validity or veracity of this testimony (coupled, again, with awful reasoning on Massei's part). But I think it should be fairly easy to cast significant doubt on his story*. The whole way in which it came to light, and the way in which it seems to conflict with his own employee's recollection, makes it a highly unreliable piece of testimony to me. But again, if the defence can't cast significant doubt on Quintavalle, then my belief is that Knox would be in trouble: why would she lie about her whereabouts at 7.45-8.00am on the 2nd, unless she had something major to hide?

* Although it's hard to fight against the sort of stellar "reasoning" used by Massei (and explicitly explained in his discussion of Capezzali's testimony), in which he couldn't figure why somebody would testify to something happening if it hadn't actually happened......

I really don't think Hellmann cares about Quintavalle or the bathmat print.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

let's all steal good ideas from each other

By the way, has it occurred to the idiots that the reason why so many non-Italian codes of procedure are referenced in the independent DNA report is because the Italian scientific police haven't yet bothered to write their own? Have the idiots stopped to think why that might be, and what that might imply?

LondonJohn,

On a more general note, I would suggest that Italian jurisprudence should look at the discovery rules that the ABA wrote for DNA evidence. And, I would not hesitate to suggest the opposite if the shoe were on the other foot. If one country has a good idea, why shouldn't other countries adopt it? I think the sub judice rules in England are something worth emulating as well.

 

[RoseMontague]

By the way, has it occurred to the idiots that the reason why so many non-Italian codes of procedure are referenced in the independent DNA report is because the Italian scientific police haven't yet bothered to write their own? Have the idiots stopped to think why that might be, and what that might imply?

Sure they do. Unless it is wet you don't have to change gloves. Changing booties is optional. Gift wrap works well for evidence collection. Storage should insure destruction of evidence. If it is dirty, write clean and shiny. It it's too low, crank up the knob. If you have 18 of those little pointy things pick out 10 that match the subject and claim the rest are just noise.

Of course, as Stefanoni said, such standards as this are just recommendations. Feel free to make up the rules as you go along.

ETA: If contamination is not proven it doesn't exist.
and
DNA doesn't fly.

 

[LondonJohn]

I really don't think Hellmann cares about Quintavalle or the bathmat print.

But I think the prosecution will care immensely about these two issues when it gets to the argument phase. And I think that Hellmann will then therefore be obliged to care about them.

And, as I said before, if the prosecution manages to convince Hellmann's court that the bathmat print was definitively Sollecito's and/or that Quintavalle's testimony was accurate and reliable, then I think that Knox and Sollecito are in trouble. My view is that the defence should fairly easily be able to attack these two issues sufficiently, but I'm just pointing out that this is something that positively needs to be done. If the defence leaves the field open to the prosecution in these areas, I think guilty verdicts might follow.

 

[Rolfe]

Any minute now, someone is going to suggest that if you don't contact the defence lawyers to teach them their job, then you're insincere and wrong with it....

I see the posters at PMF, in spite of banning anyone who argues the case for "not proven", are now inviting posters in this thread to admire their classy arguments and pure motives. This is beyond farcical. I'm particularly disappointed in Fiona, who is riding the horse of confirmation bias right at the winning post of foregone conclusion.

I think there are a few people commenting on this issue who have been quite thrown by the Casey Anthony verdict. If there wasn't enough there to convict beyond reasonable doubt, how can it still be possible to express unassailable confidence in a guilty verdict on Knox and Sollecito? Oh, yes, it's OK because we know for sure how and where Meredith died. Phew, that's all right then.

Rolfe.

 

[HumanityBlues]

But I think the prosecution will care immensely about these two issues when it gets to the argument phase. And I think that Hellmann will then therefore be obliged to care about them.

Sure, the prosecution may move in this direction. It won't work.

And, as I said before, if the prosecution manages to convince Hellmann's court that the bathmat print was definitively Sollecito's and/or that Quintavalle's testimony was accurate and reliable, then I think that Knox and Sollecito are in trouble. My view is that the defence should fairly easily be able to attack these two issues sufficiently, but I'm just pointing out that this is something that positively needs to be done. If the defence leaves the field open to the prosecution in these areas, I think guilty verdicts might follow.

He could have had independent experts look at the bathmat as well. He didn't because he doesn't care.

 

[LondonJohn]

LondonJohn,

On a more general note, I would suggest that Italian jurisprudence should look at the discovery rules that the ABA wrote for DNA evidence. And, I would not hesitate to suggest the opposite if the shoe were on the other foot. If one country has a good idea, why shouldn't other countries adopt it? I think the sub judice rules in England are something worth emulating as well.

Very true. Another point worth noting is that all the referenced articles are in broad agreement with each other. If there was demonstrable conflict in procedures/protocols between different agencies, this would be significant. But the plain truth is that every one of the major agencies that have written down protocols and procedures (plus all of the minor ones) are pretty unequivocal in their approach.

Of course, it's totally illogical and irrational to attack certain references simply because they originate from a small regional law enforcement body (it's the "Indian Journal of Pathology" fallacy all over again!). Yet this is all the idiots have left to cling to.

Lastly, its interesting that you bring up the UK's sub-judice rules. Right at this moment, the government is bringing a case against two UK newspapers for breaching sub-judice rules in their reporting of the Joanna Yeates murder case. Yeates' landlord was arrested, and the press went to town on a full-court character assassination. It turned out he had absolutely nothing to do with it - but the government is arguing that had his case gone to trial, there was a risk of significant prejudice on account of the press reporting. I think this case is a very good example of the potential adverse impact of media reporting upon criminal cases, and a good argument for sub-judice rules (although such rules are increasingly unenforceable in a global village).

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...coverage-of-joanna-yeates-murder-2307524.html

 

[RoseMontague]

I don't understand the reaction to the Expert Report on the knife and the bra clasp over at PMF. We finally get an independent expert report and it seems PMF thinks it is the result of not really being independent (paid off or political pressure) or not really experts (academic library card/Google users).

Do they realize if the prosecution argues this they are in fact arguing that Hellman can't properly choose good experts? The prosecution now has to convince the judge that his choice was a bad one and that his experts are dummies or are in somebody's pocket.

The report is absolutely devastating to the prosecution case. The prosecution has a huge hurdle to overcome here and I doubt they will even give it much of an attempt. My guess is that they throw Stefanoni on the stand and watch the slaughter without much objection.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I am positive that if I asked those that believed in innocence all of them could suggest evidence that would move them to guilt, even now.

See, I didn't even actually have to ask, just suggest asking and the thread filled with answers from those for not guilty, and still not a single respond from an believer in guilt....

 

[platonov]

Confusion, hubris and netdrama

I don't understand the reaction to the Expert Report on the knife and the bra clasp over at PMF. We finally get an independent expert report and it seems PMF thinks it is the result of not really being independent (paid off or political pressure) or not really experts (academic library card/Google users).

Do they realize if the prosecution argues this they are in fact arguing that Hellman can't properly choose good experts? The prosecution now has to convince the judge that his choice was a bad one and that his experts are dummies or are in somebody's pocket.
The report is absolutely devastating to the prosecution case. The prosecution has a huge hurdle to overcome here and I doubt they will even give it much of an attempt. My guess is that they throw Stefanoni on the stand and watch the slaughter without much objection.

Potentially devastating to an important part of the prosecutions case certainly.

Nonsense - they have to and will contest the findings of the report as happens every time expert witnesses clash. As I already said Stefanoni has no choice but to defend her work (on the bra clasp particularly) or her professional reputation never mind this case is severely damaged. To suggest she or the prosecution wont fight this is wishful thinking in the extreme.


Now while I am aware that some posters here have an inordinate interest * in everything posted by anybody on PMF & elsewhere I doubt that the prosecution are committed to having to use & defend every argument ever posted on the internet !

And unlike some of the claims made here, that the defence take their cues from this thread , I would be surprised if posters elsewhere on the net believe that to be true of whatever they post.
Meanwhile this* is probably the reason the confusion I highlighted here still hasn't been resolved nor the Q I asked here responded to.

I will go out on a very short limb and suggest that this issue will arise when the matter is considered and furthermore that the prosecution or the court wont need to read my posts to be aware of this

 

[Fine]

I don't understand the reaction to the Expert Report on the knife and the bra clasp over at PMF. We finally get an independent expert report and it seems PMF thinks it is the result of not really being independent (paid off or political pressure) or not really experts (academic library card/Google users).

Do they realize if the prosecution argues this they are in fact arguing that Hellman can't properly choose good experts? The prosecution now has to convince the judge that his choice was a bad one and that his experts are dummies or are in somebody's pocket.

The report is absolutely devastating to the prosecution case. The prosecution has a huge hurdle to overcome here and I doubt they will even give it much of an attempt. My guess is that they throw Stefanoni on the stand and watch the slaughter without much objection.

__________________

Rose,

We know Stefanoni doesn't want to be there. Sometimes a court will accept a signed DECLARATION from a witness in lieu of in-person testimony. I wonder whether Judge Hellmann will accept a statement from Stefanoni in which she accepts the conclusions of the Expert Report. Period. It would be a gracious and charitable means for Stefanoni to escape the predictable, and shameful, I see London, I see France that she'd endure on the witness stand.

///

 

[RoseMontague]

Potentially devastating to an important part of the prosecutions case certainly.

Nonsense - they have to and will contest the findings of the report as happens every time expert witnesses clash. As I already said Stefanoni has no choice but to defend her work (on the bra clasp particularly) or her professional reputation never mind this case is severely damaged. To suggest she or the prosecution wont fight this is wishful thinking in the extreme.

They are going to throw Stefanoni under the bus, platonov. That is my opinion and it has been my opinion from the beginning of the appeal. I also said that they would let Stefanoni defend her work on the stand. It is the attacking of Hellmann's experts that they will avoid, again my opinion. We shall see in a few weeks.

 

[platonov]

__________________

Rose,

We know Stefanoni doesn't want to be there. Sometimes a court will accept a signed DECLARATION from a witness in lieu of in-person testimony. I wonder whether Judge Hellmann will accept a statement from Stefanoni in which she accepts the conclusions of the Expert Report. Period. In would be a gracious and charitable means for Stefanoni to escape the predictable, and shameful, I see London, I see France that she'll endure on the witness stand.

///

Fine

Don't tease people like that - the convulsions and fake blood was kinda funny but that's just cruel.

 

[Kaosium]

They are going to throw Stefanoni under the bus, platonov. That is my opinion and it has been my opinion from the beginning of the appeal. I also said that they would let Stefanoni defend her work on the stand. It is the attacking of Hellmann's experts that they will avoid, again my opinion. We shall see in a few weeks.

That's where Maresca will come in, I bet. The prosecution will stand back and let attack-dog Francesco do the dirty work, like they have for Alessi and then the 'very credible' sex-change bribery charges.